This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the award of
Arbitrator J.C. Fogelberg filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the
Federal Service Labor - Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part
2425 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

A grievance was filed and submitted to arbitration disputing the request
of the grievant's supervisor that the grievant submit additional medical
information to her from his physician to support his being exempted from
mandatory overtime. The Arbitrator determined that management was authorized
under Office of Personnel Management regulations and Air Force regulations to
request medical information for such a purpose and that the request in this
case was reasonable. He also rejected the Union's argument that the submission
of the medical information to the grievant's supervisor violated the Privacy
Act and medical ethics regarding confidentiality. Accordingly, as his award,
the Arbitrator denied the grievance.

III. Discussion

The Union contends that the award is deficient because the Arbitrator
permitted the unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the
grievant by upholding the submission of the requested medical records to the
grievant's supervisor who is not a medical professional. Specifically, the
Union argues that the award is contrary to the Privacy Act and implementing
regulations pertaining to disclosure of medical records.

We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the Arbitrator's
award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth in section 7122(a) of the
Statute; specifically, that the award is contrary to any law, rule, or
regulation, or that the award is deficient on other grounds similar to those
applied by Federal courts in private sector labor relations cases. See, for
example, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, 12 FLRA 616 (1983) (exception
contending that the award was contrary to law provided no basis for finding
that the award was deficient; the union was attempting to relitigate the merits
of the case before the Authority and the exception constituted disagreement
with the arbitrator's reasoning and conclusions).